When an order passed by this Court it is to be considered by the public at large and the same concluded at the instance of this Court. Then it is the duty of this Court to give respect to its order by giving sanctity more than, over and above the highest bid.
M/s Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation Ltd. is the petitioner in this writ petition. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the writ petition may be disposed of by clarifying the legal position that services rendered in relation to the execution of a works contract in respect of Railways is not taxable under Section 66 of the Finance Act, 1994 (‘the Act’ for short). I find no legal impediment to clarify the legal position.
From statement of one of assessees, it is clear that in respect of 39.19 acres of land, the transaction is complete and the assessees have received full consideration from ‘N’ as per the MOU. Hence, the transaction in respect of 39.19 acres is completed and each of the assessees have got the income of Rs. 25,07,508 in the said transaction. Hence, the said amount has to be treated as income from the real estate and liable to be brought under tax.
When Clause 11 of the instruction No.3/11 dated 09.02.2011 issued by the Board, specifically says that it will be applicable to the cases filed on or after 9.2.2011, the courts holding that it is applicable to the pending cases is against the provision under Section 268A of the Act, Public Interest and the Public Policy.
Insofar as eucalyptus and other trees are concerned, the cost of acquisition on the basis of the judgment of the Kerala High Court made in Pullengode Rubbers & Produce Co. Ltd. case, (supra) the capital gain was worked out at 30% of the sale proceeds. The Assessing Officer rejected the appellant’s method of arriving at the cost of rosewood and silver oak trees relying upon the judgment of the Kerala High Court, uniformly m respect of rosewood, silver oak, eucalyptus and other trees.
A partner is not entitled to receive remuneration for taking part in the conduct of the business under section 13 of the Partnership Act. This rule is subject to the contract to the contrary. In other words, if there is a contract between partners to receive remuneration for taking part in the conduct of the business, this rule is not applicable. Section 40(b) recognizes this rule. It provides for making payment to a partner subject to the condition mentioned therein being fulfilled. The said conditions are:-
According to Explanation 10 and proviso to sub-section (1) of section 43, the subsidy amount shall be deducted in the actual cost of the asset of the assessee. Thus, the contention of the assessee that the subsidy received towards the power generation plant would not be reduced from the actual cost of the assets was not correct.
As per the Development Agreement entered into between the parties, the assessee and his brothers have demolished the existing residential building and handed over the vacant space to an extent of 16800 sq ft. to the Developer for construction of the apartment. Since the residential building has already been demolished by the assessee and his brothers themselves, they are not entitled to claim benefit under section 54 of the Act.
To implement the objects of the company two of the shareholders gifted 25000 shares of M/s. Infosys Technologies Limited. The said shares were shown as investment. Merely because the company has earned profits by selling some of the shares, that doesn’t mean that the company is engaged in shares trading.
Reading of section 54EA of the Act makes it very clear that in case, the whole or any part of the net consideration of sale is invested in Specified Securities within a period of six months after the date of transfer, the deduction under section 54EA is available. The Net Consideration has been defined in Explanation to section 54EA of the Act.
